Federal Register Vol. 83, No.9,

Congress passed the FCPIAA in 1990 to allow for regular adjustment for inflation of CMPs, maintain the deterrent effect of such penalties and promote compliance with the law, and improve the collection of CMPs by the Federal government (Pub L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Pursuant to this authority, and as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-34, 110 Stat. 1321-373), the NRC increased via rulemaking the CMP amounts for violations of the AEA (codified at § 2.205 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)) and Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (codified at § 13.3) on four occasions between 1996 and 2008.1

On November 2, 2015, Congress amended the FCPIAA through the 2015 Improvements Act (Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599). The 2015 Improvements Act required that the head of each agency perform an initial “catch-up” adjustment via rulemaking, adjusting the CMPs enforced by that agency according to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) between the month of October 2015 and the month of October of the calendar year when the CMP amount was last established by Congress. The NRC performed this catch-up rulemaking on July 1, 2016 (81 FR 43019).

The 2015 Improvements Act also requires that the head of each agency continue to adjust CMP amounts, rounded to the nearest dollar, on an annual basis. Specifically, each CMP is to be adjusted based on the percentage change between the CPI for the previous month of October, and the CPI for the month of October in the year preceding that. The NRC most recently adjusted its civil penalties for inflation according to this statutory formula on January 24, 2017 (82 FR 8133). This year's adjustment is based on the percentage change between the CPI for October 2017 and October 2016.

Section 234 of the AEA limits civil penalties for violations of the AEA to $100,000 per day, per violation (42 U.S.C. 2282). However, as discussed in Section I, “Background,” of this document, the NRC has increased this amount several times since 1996 per the FCPIAA, as amended. Using the formula in the 2015 Improvements Act, the $285,057 amount last established in January 2017 will increase by 2.041%, resulting in a new CMP amount of $290,875. This is based on the percentage change between the October 2017 CPI (246.663) and the October 2016 CPI (241.729). Therefore, the NRC is amending § 2.205 to reflect a new maximum CMP under the AEA in the amount of $290,875 per day, per violation. This represents an increase of $5,818.

Monetary penalties under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act were established in 1986 at $5,000 per claim (Pub. L. 99-509, 100 Stat. 1938; 31 U.S.C. 3802). The NRC has also adjusted this amount (currently set at $10,957) multiple times pursuant to the FCPIAA, as amended, since 1996. Using the formula in the 2015 Improvements Act, the $10,957 amount last established in January 2017 will also increase by 2.041%, resulting in a new CMP amount of $11,181. Therefore, the NRC is amending § 13.3 to reflect a new maximum CMP amount of $11,181 per claim or statement. This represents an increase of $224.

As permitted by the 2015 Improvements Act, the NRC may apply these increased CMP amounts to any penalties assessed by the agency after the effective date of this rulemaking (January 15, 2018), regardless of whether the associated violation occurred before or after this date (Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 600; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). The NRC assesses civil penalty amounts for violations of the AEA based on the class of licensee and severity of the violation, in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (ADAMS Accession No. ML16197A561). A corresponding update to the NRC Enforcement Policy to reflect the updated CMP amount in § 2.205 will be published in the near future.

The 2015 Improvements Act expressly exempts this final rule from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, by directing agencies to adjust CMPs for inflation “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code” (Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). As such, this final rule is being issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment, with an immediate effective date.

Paragraph (j) in § 2.205 is revised by replacing “$285,057” with “$290,875”.

Paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(ii) in § 13.3 are revised by replacing “$10,957” with “$11,181”.

This final rule adjusts for inflation the maximum CMPs the NRC may assess under the AEA and under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986. The formula for determining the amount of the adjustment is mandated by Congress in the FCPIAA, as amended by the 2015 Improvements Act (codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Congress passed this legislation on the basis of its findings that the power to impose monetary civil penalties is important to deterring violations of Federal law and furthering the policy goals of Federal laws and regulations. Congress has also found that inflation diminishes the impact of these penalties and their effect. The principal purposes of this legislation are to provide for adjustment of civil monetary penalties for inflation, maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties, and promote compliance with the law. Therefore, these are the anticipated impacts of this rulemaking. Direct monetary impacts fall only upon licensees or other persons subjected to NRC enforcement for violations of the AEA and regulations and orders issued under the AEA (§ 2.205), or those licensees or persons subjected to liability pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801-3812) and the NRC's implementing regulations (10 CFR part 13).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to regulations for which a Federal agency is not required by law, including the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C 553(b), to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 604). As discussed in this notice under Section III., “Rulemaking Procedure,” the NRC has determined that this final rule is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and notice and comment need not be provided. Accordingly, the NRC also determines that the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this final rule.

The NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this final rule. This final rule does not involve any provision that would impose a backfit, nor is it inconsistent with any issue finality provision, as those terms are defined in 10 CFR chapter I. As mandated by Congress, this final rule increases CMP amounts for violations of already-existing NRC regulations and requirements. This final rule does not modify any licensee systems, structures, components, designs, approvals, or procedures required for the construction or operation of any facility.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.

This final rule does not contain a collection of information as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 2 and 13:

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the 1990 Adjustment Act),1 as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Adjustment Act),2 requires Federal agencies to adjust the amount of their civil money penalties (CMPs) 3 for inflation by January 15 of each year, and requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance to Federal agencies not later than December 15 of each year, on implementing the required inflation adjustments.

On January 27, 2017, the OCC published a final rule amending its rules of practice and procedure for national banks and its rules of practice and procedure in adjudicatory proceedings for Federal savings associations to adjust the maximum amount of each CMP within its jurisdiction to administer for inflation.4 The final rule also changed the method for making subsequent inflation adjustments, consistent with the 2015 Adjustment Act and OMB guidance.5 Specifically, sections 19.240(a) and 109.103(c)(1) of the rule codified the formula for making inflation adjustments for national banks and Federal savings associations, respectively. Sections 19.240(b) and 109.103(c)(2) of the rule provided a chart of penalties applicable during 2017. Sections 19.240(c) and 109.103(c)(3) also provided that notice of the maximum penalties which may be assessed for calendar years after 2017 will be published as a notice in the Federal Register on an annual basis on or before January 15 of each calendar year.6

The Final Rule changes the maximum limit for CMPs according to inflation as mandated by Congress in the 2015 Adjustment Act.1 The intended effect of annually adjusting maximum civil money penalties in accordance with changes in the Consumer Price Index is to minimize any distortion in the real value of those maximums due to inflation, thereby promoting a more consistent deterrent effect in the structure of CMPs.

The FDIC assesses CMPs under section 8(i) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), 12 U.S.C. 1818, and a variety of other statutes.2 Congress established maximum penalties that could be assessed under these statutes. In many cases, these statutes contain multiple penalty tiers, permitting the assessment of penalties at various levels depending upon the severity of the misconduct at issue.3

In 1990, Congress determined that the assessment of CMPs plays “an important role in deterring violations and furthering the policy goals embodied in such laws and regulations” and concluded that “the impact of many civil monetary penalties has been and is diminished due to the effect of inflation.” 4 Consequently, Congress required federal agencies with authority to impose CMPs to periodically adjust by rulemaking the maximum CMPs which these agencies were authorized to impose in order to “maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties and promote compliance with the law.” 5 Under the 1990 Adjustment Act, the FDIC adjusted its CMP amounts every four years.6

In 2015, Congress revised the process by which federal agencies adjust applicable CMPs for inflation.7 Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, the FDIC is required to make annual adjustments for inflation.8 These adjustments apply to all CMPs covered by the 2015 Adjustment Act.9 The 2015 Adjustment Act requires annual adjustments to be made by January 15 of each year.10

Although the 2015 Adjustment Act increases the maximum penalty that may be assessed under each applicable statute, the FDIC possesses discretion to impose CMP amounts below the maximum level in accordance with the severity of the misconduct at issue. For example, when making a determination as to the appropriate level of a penalty assessed under section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA, 12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2), the FDIC is guided by statutory factors set forth in section 8(i)(2)(G) of the FDIA, 12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)(G), and those factors identified in the Interagency Policy Statement Regarding the Assessment of CMPs by the Federal Financial Institutions Regulatory Agencies. 11 Such factors include, but are not limited to, the gravity and duration of the misconduct, and the intent related to the misconduct.

The 2015 Adjustment Act notes that the FDIC “shall adjust [CMPs] and shall make the adjustment notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code” (the Administrative Procedure Act).12 The FDIC, therefore, is not obligated to publish the adjustments through notice-and-comment rulemaking, and the FDIC is publishing the adjustments through a final rule.

The Final Rule modifies the maximum limit for CMPs according to inflation as mandated by Congress in the 2015 Adjustment Act. The 2015 Adjustment Act directs federal agencies to follow guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on December 15, 2017 (OMB Guidance), when calculating new maximum penalty levels.13 The adjustments are to be based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U)14 for October 2016 and the October 2017 CPI-U.

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990,1 as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 2 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act),3 directs Federal agencies to adjust for inflation the civil penalty amounts within their jurisdiction not later than July 1, 2016, and then not later than January 15 every year thereafter.4 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. Each agency was required to make the 2016 one-time catch-up adjustments through an interim final rule published in the Federal Register. On June 14, 2016, the Bureau published its interim final rule to make the initial catch-up adjustments to civil penalties within the Bureau's jurisdiction.5 The June 2016 interim final rule created a new part 1083 and in § 1083.1 established the inflation-adjusted maximum amounts for each civil penalty within the Bureau's jurisdiction.6 The Inflation Adjustment Act also requires subsequent adjustments to be made annually, not later than January 15, and notwithstanding section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).7

Specifically, Federal agencies are directed to adjust annually each civil penalty provided by law within the jurisdiction of the agency by the “cost-of-living adjustment.” 8 For annual adjustments after the initial catch up adjustments, the “cost-of-living adjustment” is defined as the percentage (if any) by which the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment, exceeds the CPI-U for October of the prior year.9 The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to issue guidance (OMB Guidance) every year by December 15 to agencies on implementing the annual civil penalty inflation adjustments.10 Pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act and OMB Guidance, agencies must apply the multiplier reflecting the “cost-of-living adjustment” to the current penalty amount and then round that amount to the nearest dollar to determine the annual adjustments.11

For the 2018 annual adjustment, the multiplier reflecting the “cost-of-living adjustment” is 1.02041.12 Pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act and OMB Guidance, the Bureau multiplied each of its civil penalty amounts by the “cost-of-living adjustment” multiplier and rounded to the nearest dollar.13

The new penalty amounts that apply to civil penalties assessed after January 15, 2018 are as follows:

The Bureau issues this final rule under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990,14 as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 15 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,16 which requires the Bureau to adjust for inflation the civil penalties within its jurisdiction according to a statutorily prescribed formula.

Under the APA, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.17 Pursuant to this final rule, § 1083.1 is amended to update the civil penalty amounts. The 2018 adjustments to the civil penalty amounts are technical and non-discretionary, and they merely apply the statutory method for adjusting civil penalty amounts. These adjustments are required by the Inflation Adjustment Act. Moreover, the Inflation Adjustment Act directs agencies to adjust the civil penalties annually notwithstanding section 553 of the APA,18 and OMB Guidance reaffirms that agencies need not complete a notice-and-comment process before making the annual adjustments for inflation.19 For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendment is adopted in final form.

Section 553(d) of the APA generally requires publication of a final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.20 At a minimum, the Bureau believes the annual adjustments to the civil penalty amounts in § 1083.1 fall under the third exception to section 553(d). The Bureau finds that there is good cause to make the amendments effective on January 15, 2018. The amendments to § 1083.1 in this final rule are technical and non-discretionary, and they merely apply the statutory method for adjusting civil penalty amounts and follow the statutory directive to make annual adjustments by January 15 of each year. Moreover, the Inflation Adjustment Act directs agencies to adjust the civil penalties annually notwithstanding section 553 of the APA,21 and OMB Guidance reaffirms that agencies need not provide a delay in effective date for the annual adjustments for inflation.22

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis.23

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,24 the Bureau reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), CFPB will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the rule taking effect. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has designated this rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends 12 CFR part 1083 as set forth below:

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0045, dated February 25, 2014; corrected March 4, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319-115 and A319-133 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1244.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-1244; Product Identifier 2013-NM-145-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2017 (82 FR 29792). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the frame outboard chord and in the radius of the auxiliary chord at a certain area. The NPRM proposed to require inspections to detect this cracking, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the outboard and auxiliary chords, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the outboard chord and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions specified in the NPRM.

We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Boeing asked that the language “and repair” be removed from paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that the language in paragraph (i) refers to a section in Part 6 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006, which is to determine if the modification should be classified as interim or permanent. Boeing noted that the additional language “and repair” is not part of that section, and suggested it be deleted.

We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We have deleted “and repair” from paragraph (i) of this AD.

Swiftair S.A. stated that the language describing the requirements in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD is confusing. Swiftair asked that the effectivity and the requirements identified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be clarified in some way due to extensive sub-paragraphs. Swiftair recommended that the “and” in the sentence be emphasized.

We acknowledge the commenter's concern. However, we cannot emphasize or highlight specific text in an AD. The affected airplanes in paragraph (h) of the AD are those that meet all of the criteria specified in the sub-paragraphs. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Swiftair S.A. also stated that the language describing the requirements in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD is confusing. Swiftair added that the pre-regulatory text in the NPRM refers to actions from AD 2012-23-04, Amendment 39-17260 (77 FR 69747, November 21, 2012) (“AD 2012-23-04”) and the combination of that rulemaking and the actions in the proposed AD is confusing. Swiftair also stated that paragraph (r) of AD 2012-23-04 should be explained in the current requirements and not in the pre-regulatory text.

We agree that some clarification is necessary. Concerning the request to include the current requirements of AD 2012-23-04 in this AD, we would have had to issue different rulemaking. Instead of a stand-alone AD, the alternative would have been to supersede AD 2012-23-04, which would have resulted in a single but considerably more complex AD. All operators identified in AD 2012-23-04 would then have to show compliance with the new supersedure AD. Our experience with similar complex ADs, and with operator feedback, is that it is preferable to leave the existing AD as is and issue a related but stand-alone AD such as this one.

To clarify the criteria in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, we have added Note 1 to paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to reference the optional terminating action specified in paragraph (r) of AD 2012-23-04.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006. The service information describes procedures for inspections for cracks of the body station (BS) 727 frame outboard chord and in the radius of the auxiliary chord, and repair or replacement if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 160 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that are required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We issued AD 95-25-02, Amendment 39-9446 (60 FR 63615, December 12, 1995) (“AD 95-25-02”), which applied to certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. AD 95-25-02 was prompted by a report that the hinges of the small cargo door are made of a material that is sensitive to stress corrosion cracking. AD 95-25-02 required inspection(s) to detect cracks of the fuselage-mounted half of hinge assemblies of the small cargo door, and replacement of any cracked hinge assembly with a new hinge assembly. We issued AD 95-25-02 to prevent failure of the hinges of the small cargo door due to stress corrosion cracking, which could result in opening and/or separation of the door while the airplane is in flight, and resultant rapid decompression and/or structural damage to the airplane.

Since we issued AD 95-25-02, we have determined that the existing inspection program does not provide sufficient protection against fatigue-induced cracks.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2013-0028, dated February 8, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1242.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-1242; Product Identifier 2013-NM-043-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition replacements that would be required based on the results of the required actions:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We issued AD 2011-14-10, Amendment 39-16745 (76 FR 41657, July 15, 2011) (“AD 2011-14-10”), which applied to certain Airbus Model A330-342 airplanes. AD 2011-14-10 was prompted by a determination that airworthiness limitation item (ALI) task 533105-10-02 was not performed on certain airplanes. AD 2011-14-10 required repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracks of fuselage frame 39.1 at the fastener hole area just above stringer 28, and repair, if necessary. We issued AD 2011-14-10 to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the internal structure of the fuselage, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Since we issued AD 2011-14-10, we have determined, based on a new fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation that took into account airplane usage, that the compliance time threshold and intervals need to be shorter.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2012-0140, dated July 27, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-342 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1243.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-1243; Product Identifier 2012-NM-150-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes Class E airspace designated as an extension, and amends Class D airspace at Felker AAF, Fort Eustis, VA, to support IFR operations under standard instrument approach procedures at the airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (82 FR 16952, April 7, 2017) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0032. The NPRM proposed to amend Class E airspace designated as an extension at Felker AAF, Fort Eustis, VA, due to the decommissioning of the Felker NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

This action also makes an editorial change to the Class D airspace legal description removing the words “(formerly the Airport/Facility Directory)”. Except for this change, the rule is the same as published in the NPRM.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Felker Army Airfield, Fort Eustis, VA, due to the decommissioning of the Felker NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted under Class D to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Additionally, this action removes the words “(formerly the Airport/Facility Directory)” from the Class D airspace legal description.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

In a separate document published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the Commission issued final rules that update its 17 CFR part 9 rules (“Final Part 9 Rules”), including § 9.11, that sets forth the notice requirements for an exchange regarding disciplinary and access denial actions. Section 9.11 was first established in 1978 to carry out certain mandates of section 8c of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act” or “CEA”).1 Section 8c of the Act generally: (i) Requires exchanges to discipline members and to notify the disciplined individuals, the Commission, and the public of disciplinary actions; and (ii) grants the Commission the authority to review exchange disciplinary actions. Section 9.11 sets forth the manner in which an exchange is to provide that notice.

In 1999, the Commission delegated authority to the NFA to receive and to process exchange disciplinary and access denial information (“Part 9 Delegation”).2 Consequently, the NFA currently serves as the official custodian of records for exchange disciplinary filings. In 1999, concurrent with the Part 9 Delegation, the Commission published an advisory permitting exchanges to file 9.11 notices with the Commission or the NFA (“Part 9 Advisory”).3 While permitting filing with the Commission, the Part 9 Advisory encourages exchanges to file the required notice with the NFA. The Final Part 9 Rules, among other things, codify the Part 9 Advisory and replace the § 9.11 requirement that written notice be provided to the Commission with a requirement that notice be provided to the NFA via the NFA's Background Affiliation Status Information Center (“BASIC”) system.4 Moreover, because SEFs did not exist when the Commission issued the initial delegation in 1999, this Notice and Order is being updated to reflect that the NFA will receive disciplinary and access denial action notices from SEFs in addition to DCMs.5 For purposes of this Notice and Order, the term “exchange” includes DCMs and SEFs.

The NFA must process exchange § 9.11 notices in a manner consistent with § 9.11. For purposes of this Notice and Order, the term “process” generally refers to receipt of filings and review of filings for compliance with applicable requirements. Section 9.11(a) requires that whenever an exchange decision, pursuant to which a disciplinary or access denial action to be imposed has become final, the exchange must provide written notice of such action to the NFA within 30 days. In addition, § 9.11 notices filed with the NFA must satisfy all of the content requirements set forth in § 9.11(b). Toward that end, notices filed with the NFA will be deemed certified when an authorized exchange employee verifies the accuracy of the information entered into BASIC.

The NFA must provide the Commission with access to the BASIC system so that the Commission can diligently carry out its legislative mandate. This includes access to a Management Report that includes the following for each disciplinary or access denial action:

• Name of Contributor (i.e., an exchange, the NFA, or the Commission);

• Name of Respondent;

• Contributor Reference Number (i.e., disciplinary case number generated by contributor);

• Date of Decision or Order;

• Date of Notification of NFA;

• Total Number of Days for Data to be Released into BASIC (i.e., number of days from the date of an exchange final action until the date of exchange verification/certification); and

• Name of Staff Person Entering Data (i.e., initials).

The Commission currently has access to the BASIC system and the ability to generate 26 standardized reports that are customizable with respect to the timeframe selected (e.g., January 1, 2017 to May 31, 2017), including the Management Report. Among other things, the Commission is able to analyze the data maintained in BASIC by: Disciplinary actions against firms or individuals resulting in fines, suspensions, or expulsions; disciplinary actions issued by each exchange; and the type of rule violations across all exchanges. The Commission generates these reports on an as needed basis. As the Commission needs these reports for effective oversight of the exchanges, the NFA must continue to provide the Commission with the capability to generate each of these reports from BASIC. The NFA shall continue working with the Commission to develop additional query capabilities as the Commission deems necessary to fulfill its regulatory and oversight responsibilities.

The NFA shall maintain, and serve as the official custodian of, records for exchange § 9.11 filings. The NFA shall fulfill this obligation by continuing to maintain the BASIC system and further developing it as necessary to comply with the terms of this Notice and Order. The NFA shall also implement such additional procedures (or modify existing procedures) as are necessary to reasonably ensure the security and integrity of these records.

Pursuant to section 8a(10) of the Act, the Commission has issued numerous orders authorizing the NFA to perform various portions of the Commission's registration functions and responsibilities under the Act.6 In this connection, the Commission has previously issued orders authorizing the NFA to perform the full range of registration processing functions with respect to applicants for and persons registered as a: futures commission merchant, commodity pool operator, or commodity trading advisor; 7 introducing broker; 8 leverage transaction merchant; 9 floor broker; 10 floor trader; 11 retail foreign exchange dealer; 12 and swap dealer or major swap participant (collectively, registrants).13 Additionally, the NFA has adopted, and the Commission has approved, rules that govern the performance of the registration functions. For example, NFA Rule 501 pertains to the NFA's authority to deny, condition, suspend, and revoke registration for registrants. NFA Rule 504 sets forth the procedures governing applicants and registrants disqualified from registration under sections 8a(2), 8a(3), or 8a(4) of the Act.

In light of NFA's experience in processing and maintaining exchange disciplinary and access denial actions on behalf of the Commission, the Commission has determined that it will continue to delegate these functions to the NFA. This Notice and Order is in accord with the Commission's previous delegations to the NFA to perform registration processing functions with respect to applicants and registrants, in that, an individual's or firm's disciplinary history clearly is a factor that must be considered in any fitness determination. Deeming the NFA as the custodian of all exchange § 9.11 filings, and delegating to the NFA the responsibility for processing such filings and generating reports with the information amassed, should ensure that the NFA has the necessary information to continue to make appropriate registration determinations. Further, the Commission believes that this delegation order will enhance efficiency by permitting the Commission to carry out its statutory responsibilities under the CEA, while also freeing up Commission resources to be directed to other parts of its regulatory mandate.

The Commission has determined, in accordance with section 8a(10) of the Act, to delegate to the NFA the authority to perform the following functions:

(1) To process exchange disciplinary information filed with it by an exchange or the Commission for inclusion in the BASIC system;

(2) To provide the Commission with access to a Management Report summarizing all recent exchange disciplinary information and to provide the Commission with the capability to generate standardized reports on the BASIC system;

(3) To assist the Commission in enforcing exchange compliance with regulation 9.11 filing requirements; and

(4) To serve as the official custodian of a database containing records of all exchange disciplinary and access denial actions filed with the NFA for inclusion in the BASIC system.

The NFA is authorized to perform all functions specified herein until such time as the Commission orders otherwise. Nothing in this Notice and Order shall affect the Commission's oversight authority of exchange disciplinary programs. The Commission is retaining all of its oversight authority, including its authority to review and to modify exchange disciplinary actions and to take enforcement or other remedial action against exchanges for noncompliance with § 9.11. The NFA may submit to the Commission for clarification any specific matters that have been delegated to it, and

Commission staff will be available to discuss with NFA staff issues relating to implementation of this Notice and Order.

1. In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is complying with its statutory obligation to amend the civil monetary penalties provided by law for matters within the agency's jurisdiction.

2. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Adjustment Act),1 which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (1990 Adjustment Act),2 required the head of each federal agency to issue a rule by July 2016 adjusting for inflation each “civil monetary penalty” provided by law within the agency's jurisdiction and to make further inflation adjustments on an annual basis every January 15 thereafter.3

3. The 2015 Adjustment Act defines a civil monetary penalty as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that: (A)(i) Is for a specific monetary amount as provided by federal law; or (ii) has a maximum amount provided for by federal law; (B) is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to federal law; and (C) is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the federal courts.4 This definition applies to the maximum civil penalties that may be imposed under the Federal Power Act (FPA),5 the Natural Gas Act (NGA),6 the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA),7 and the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA).8

4. Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, the first step for such adjustment of a civil monetary penalty for inflation requires determining the percentage by which the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers (CPI-U) for October of the preceding year exceeds the CPI-U for October of the year before that.9 The CPI-U for October 2017 exceeded the CPI-U for October 2016 by 2.041 percent.10

5. The second step requires multiplying the CPI-U percentage increase by the applicable existing maximum civil monetary penalty.11 This step results in a base penalty increase amount.

6. The third step requires rounding the base penalty increase amount to the nearest dollar and adding that amount to the base penalty to calculate the new adjusted maximum civil monetary penalty.12

7. Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, an agency is directed to use the maximum civil monetary penalty applicable at the time of assessment of a civil penalty, regardless of the date on which the violation occurred.13

8. The adjustments that the Commission is required to make pursuant to the 2015 Adjustment Act are reflected in the following table:

9. Congress directed that agencies issue final rules to adjust their maximum civil monetary penalties notwithstanding the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).14 Because the Commission is required by law to undertake these inflation adjustments notwithstanding the notice and comment requirements that otherwise would apply pursuant to the APA, and because the Commission lacks discretion with respect to the method and amount of the adjustments, prior notice and comment would be impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.

10. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, requires agencies to certify that rules promulgated under their authority will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.15 The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act apply only to rules promulgated following notice and comment.16 The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this rulemaking because the Commission is issuing this final rule without notice and comment.

11. This rule does not require the collection of information. The Commission is therefore not required to submit this rule for review to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.17

12. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.

13. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number (excluding the last three digits) in the docket number field.

14. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202)-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659, [email protected].

15. For the same reasons the Commission has determined that public notice and comment are unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest, the Commission finds good cause to adopt an effective date that is less than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act,18 and therefore, the regulation is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

16. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This Final Rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 250 and 385, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act), Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, section 701, 129 Stat. 584, requires the regular adjustment and evaluation of civil monetary penalties to maintain their deterrent effect and helps to ensure that penalty amounts imposed by the Federal Government are properly accounted for and collected. A “civil monetary penalty” is defined in the Inflation Adjustment Act as any penalty, fine, or other such sanction that is: (1) For a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law, or has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; (2) assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and (3) assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts.

The Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended, requires agencies to adjust civil monetary penalties by the inflation adjustment described in section 5 of the Inflation Adjustment Act no later than January 15 of every year thereafter. The Act also provides that any increase in a civil monetary penalty shall apply only to civil monetary penalties, including those whose associated violation predated such an increase, which are assessed after the date the increase takes effect.

The Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended, provides that the inflation adjustment does not apply to civil monetary penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or the Tariff Act of 1930.

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act) pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, (superseding Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

The FAA Act contains the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act (ABLA) of 1988, Public Law 100-690, 27 U.S.C. 213-219a, which was enacted on November 18, 1988. Section 204 of the ABLA, codified in 27 U.S.C. 215, requires that a health warning statement appear on the labels of all containers of alcoholic beverages manufactured, imported, or bottled for sale or distribution in the United States, as well as on containers of alcoholic beverages that are manufactured, imported, bottled, or labeled for sale, distribution, or shipment to members or units of the U.S. Armed Forces, including those located outside the United States.

The health warning statement requirement applies to containers of alcoholic beverages manufactured, imported, or bottled for sale or distribution in the United States on or after November 18, 1989. The statement reads as follows:

Section 204 of the ABLA also specifies that the Secretary of the Treasury shall have the power to ensure the enforcement of the provisions of the ABLA and issue regulations to carry out them out. In addition, section 207 of the ABLA, codified in 27 U.S.C. 218, provides that any person who violates the provisions of the ABLA is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000, with each day constituting a separate offense.

Most of the civil monetary penalties administered by TTB are imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and thus are not subject to the inflation adjustment mandated by the Inflation Adjustment Act. The only civil monetary penalty enforced by TTB that is subject to the inflation adjustment is the penalty imposed by the ABLA at 27 U.S.C. 218.

The TTB regulations implementing the ABLA are found in 27 CFR part 16, and the regulations implementing the Inflation Adjustment Act with respect to the ABLA penalty are found in 27 CFR 16.33. This section indicates that the ABLA provides that any person who violates the provisions of this part shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000, but also states that, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended, this civil penalty is subject to periodic cost-of-living adjustment. Accordingly, any person who violates the provisions of 27 CFR part 16 shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than the amount listed at https://www.ttb.gov/regulation_guidance/ablapenalty.html. Each day shall constitute a separate offense.

To adjust the penalty, § 16.33(b) indicates that TTB will provide notice in the Federal Register and at the website mentioned above of cost-of-living adjustments to the civil penalty for violations of 27 CFR part 16.

In this document, TTB is publishing its yearly adjustment to the maximum ABLA penalty, as required by the amended Inflation Adjustment Act.

As mentioned earlier, the ABLA contains a maximum civil monetary penalty. For such penalties, Section 5 of the Inflation Adjustment Act indicates that the inflation adjustment shall be determined by increasing the maximum penalty by the cost-of-living adjustment. The cost-of-living adjustment means the percentage (if any) by which the Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October 1 year before the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment.

The CPI-U in October 2016 was 241.729, and the CPI-U in October 2017 was 246.663. The rate of inflation between October 2016 and October 2017 is therefore 2.041 percent. When applied to the current ABLA penalty of $20,111, this rate of inflation yields a raw (unrounded) inflation adjustment of $410.46551. Rounded to the nearest dollar, the inflation adjustment is $410, meaning that the new maximum civil penalty for violations of the ABLA will be $20,521.

The new maximum civil penalty will apply to all penalties that are assessed after January 12, 2018. TTB will also update its web page at https://www.ttb.gov/regulation_guidance/ablapenalty.html to reflect the adjusted penalty.

PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminated single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's website (http://www.pbgc.gov).

PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.

The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for February 2018.1

The February 2018 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 0.75 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for January 2018, these assumptions are unchanged.

PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during February 2018, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:

This rule is needed to carry out the requirements of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and Office of Management and Budget guidance M-18-03. The rule adjusts, as required for 2018, the maximum civil penalties under 29 CFR part 4071 and 29 CFR part 4302 that PBGC may assess for failure to provide certain notices or other material information and certain multiemployer plan notices.

PBGC's legal authority for this action comes from the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and from sections 4002(b)(3), 4071, and 4302 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

This rule adjusts as required by law the maximum civil penalties that PBGC may assess under sections 4071 and 4302 of ERISA. The new maximum amounts are $2,140 for section 4071 penalties and $285 for section 4302 penalties.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Title IV has two provisions that authorize PBGC to assess civil monetary penalties.1 Section 4302, added to ERISA by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, authorizes PBGC to assess a civil penalty of up to $100 a day for failure to provide a notice under subtitle E of title IV of ERISA (dealing with multiemployer plans). Section 4071, added to ERISA by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, authorizes PBGC to assess a civil penalty of up to $1,000 a day for failure to provide a notice or other material information under subtitles A, B, and C of title IV and sections 303(k)(4) and 306(g)(4) of title I of ERISA.

On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,2 which requires agencies to adjust civil monetary penalties for inflation and to publish the adjustments in the Federal Register. An initial adjustment was required to be made by interim final rule published by July 1, 2016, and effective by August 1, 2016. Subsequent adjustments must be promulgated in January each year after 2016. In an interim final rule published on May 13, 2016 (at 81 FR 29765), PBGC adjusted the maximum penalty under section 4071 to $2,063 and adjusted the maximum penalty under section 4302 to $275.3 In a final rule published on January 31, 2017 (at 82 FR 8813), PBGC finalized its interim final rule and adjusted the maximum penalty under section 4071 to $2,097 and the maximum penalty under section 4302 to $279.4

On December 15, 2017, the Office of Management and Budget issued memorandum M-18-03 on implementation of the 2018 annual inflation adjustment pursuant to the 2015 act.5 The memorandum provides agencies with the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2018, which is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the month of October 2017, not seasonally adjusted. The multiplier for 2018 is 1.02041. The adjusted maximum amounts are $2,140 for section 4071 penalties and $285 for section 4302 penalties.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and therefore not subject to their review. As this is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not considered an E.O. 13771 regulatory action.

The Office of Management and Budget also has determined that notice and public comment on this final rule are unnecessary because the adjustment of civil penalties implemented in the rule is required by law. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

In consideration of the foregoing, PBGC amends 29 CFR parts 4071 and 4302 as follows:

It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures that are publically available on the Department's issuance website. Once signed, a copy of DoD's internal guidance contained in DoD Directive 2040.03 will be made available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Directives/issuances/dodd/.

This rule is being removed from the CFR because it does not place a burden on the public as it deals with matters internal to DoD. As a direct result of there being no burden on the public, there was never was a cost to the public to execute this rule, therefore, removing it does not provide a cost savings to the public.

On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. Section 3(a) of the Executive Order directed each Federal agency to establish a regulatory reform task force, the duty of which is to evaluate existing regulations and “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.” Accordingly, the Secretary removes 34 CFR parts 350, 356, 359, 364, 365, and 366 because they have been superseded.

In 2014, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128) made significant changes to many programs administered by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). WIOA transferred the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), its functions, and its programs from OSERS to the Administration for Community Living (ACL) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In the process, WIOA renamed NIDRR the National Institute for Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR). (See, WIOA sections 433, 435, 491(n).) The programs transferred were the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers program, the Research Fellowships program, and the Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries program.

WIOA also created within ACL the Independent Living Administration and transferred to it two programs from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) within OSERS, namely the State Independent Living Services program and the Centers for Independent Living program (WIOA sections 471-484, 491(b)).

To ensure that there would be no interruption in funding for, or services provided by, these five programs during their transfer, WIOA kept the regulations for those programs in effect until they were properly “modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked” (WIOA sections 491(i)(1), 491(n)(3)(A)). The regulations for the five transferred programs are:

The Department and HHS completed all transfers from OSERS to ACL on March 30, 2015.

On May 11, 2016, HHS published final regulations for NIDILRR's three programs, superseding 34 CFR parts 350, 356, and 359, and combines them into a single part, now codified at 45 CFR part 1330. Those three programs are now titled the Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program; the Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Fellowships program; and the Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries program (81 FR 29156).

On October 27, 2016, HHS published final regulations for the two programs transferred from RSA, superseding 34 CFR parts 364, 365, and 366. HHS did not change the names of the State Independent Living Services program or the Centers for Independent Living program, but combined all Independent Living program regulations and codified them at 45 CFR part 1329. (81 FR 74682).

Under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, this regulatory action merely removes regulations that are unnecessary because administration of the regulations and the affected programs has been transferred to another agency. This regulatory action adopts no new regulations and does not establish or affect substantive policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Secretary has determined that proposed regulations are unnecessary, and, thus, waives notice and comment rulemaking.

The APA also requires that regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date, unless the agency has good cause to implement its regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). Again, because the final regulations merely remove regulations that are unnecessary because administration of the regulations and the affected programs has been transferred to another agency, the Secretary is also waiving the 30-day delay in the effective date of these regulatory changes under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For FY 2018, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because this final rule is not a significant regulatory action, the requirement to offset new regulations in Executive Order 13771 does not apply.

We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor their regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things, and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing this regulatory action only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that maximizes net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

This regulatory action is necessary to comply with Executive Order 13777 and to remove superseded regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

This regulatory action is a benefit to the public, grant recipients, and the Department as the action will remove any confusion that might be caused by maintaining superseded regulations in the CFR.

The Department has also analyzed the costs of this regulatory action and has determined that it will impose no additional costs ($0). As detailed earlier, this regulatory action removes superseded regulations for five programs that WIOA transferred from OSERS to HHS and adopts no new ones. In 2016, HHS adopted regulations for the Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program; the Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Fellowships program; the Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries program; the State Independent Living Services program; and the Centers for Independent Living program. See, 81 FR 29156 (May 11, 2016); 81 FR 74682 (October 27, 2016).

The Secretary certifies that this regulatory action does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As detailed above, this regulatory action merely removes superseded regulations from the CFR and imposes no costs.

This regulatory action does not contain any information collection requirements. The previously OMB-approved information collections that were contained in parts 350, 356, 364, and 366 are no longer active information collections with the Department of Education. These information collections were transferred to HHS under WIOA in May 2015 and March 2016, removing 1820-0027 and 1820-0527 from ED inventory and transferring part 366 from 1820-0018. The information collections under OMB 1820-0027 (parts 350 and 356), OMB 1820-0527 (part 364), and OMB 1820-0018 (part 366 only) are not contained in this regulatory action.

Some of these programs are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and under the authority of section 414 of the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. 3474, the Secretary of Education amends chapter III of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The USPTO issues this final rule to correct an inadvertent error in § 2.193(e)(1) of its June 11, 2015 final rule revising the Trademark Rules of Practice (80 FR 33170) (published under RIN 0651-AC89).

The June 11, 2015 final rule amended the introductory text of § 2.193(e)(1) to correspond with new § 2.2(n). However, the amendatory instruction inadvertently instructed that § 2.193(e)(1)(i)-(iii) be deleted. This correction revises the amendatory instruction and thereby reinstates paragraphs (i)-(iii).

This rule is issued without prior notice and opportunity for comment as this correction is procedural/interpretative in nature, and is being implemented to avoid inconsistencies and confusion with the rule issued on June 11, 2015. Additionally, as this correction rule is nonsubstantive, it is effective immediately upon publication.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs): This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority contained in 15 U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the Office amends part 2 of title 37 as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to TCEQ. With this delegation, TCEQ has the primary responsibility to implement and enforce the delegated standards. See sections V and VI, below, for a discussion of which standards are being delegated and which are not being delegated.

Section 112(l) of the CAA, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, authorizes the EPA to delegate authority to any State or local agency which submits adequate regulatory procedures for implementation and enforcement of emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. The hazardous air pollutant standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63.

Section 112(l)(5) of the CAA enables the EPA to approve State air toxics programs or rules to operate in place of the Federal air toxics program or rules. 40 CFR part 63, subpart E (subpart E) governs the EPA's approval of State rules or programs under section 112(l).

The EPA will approve an air toxics program if we find that:

(1) The State program is “no less stringent” than the corresponding Federal program or rule;

(2) The State has adequate authority and resources to implement the program;

(3) The schedule for implementation and compliance is sufficiently expeditious; and

(4) The program otherwise complies with Federal guidance.

In order to obtain approval of its program to implement and enforce Federal section 112 rules as promulgated without changes (straight delegation), only the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d) must be met. 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3) provides that interim or final Title V program approval will satisfy the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d) for part 70 sources (sources required to obtain operating permits pursuant to Title V of the Clean Air Act). The NESHAPs delegation was most recently approved on November 25, 2014 (79 FR 70102).

As part of its Title V submission, TCEQ stated that it intended to use the mechanism of incorporation by reference to adopt unchanged Federal section 112 standards into its regulations. This commitment applied to both existing and future standards as they applied to part 70 sources ((60 FR 30444 (June 7, 1995) and 61 FR 32699 (June 25, 1996)). On December 6, 2001, the EPA promulgated final full approval of the State's operating permits program effective November 30, 2001 (66 FR 63318). TCEQ was originally delegated the authority to implement certain NESHAPs effective May 17, 2005 (70 FR 13108). Under 40 CFR 63.91(d)(2), once a State has satisfied up-front approval criteria, it needs only to reference the previous demonstration and reaffirm that it still meets the criteria for any subsequent submittals. TCEQ has affirmed that it still meets the up-front approval criteria.

By letter dated January 12, 2017, TCEQ requested the EPA to update its existing NESHAP delegation. With certain exceptions noted in section VI below, TCEQ requests delegation of certain Part 63 NESHAPs for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). TCEQ's request included newly incorporated NESHAPs promulgated by the EPA and amendments to existing standards currently delegated, as amended between April 24, 2013 and August 3, 2016. These NESHAP were adopted by TCEQ on December 7, 2016.

The EPA cannot delegate to a State any of the Category II Subpart A authorities set forth in 40 CFR 63.91(g)(2). These include the following provisions: § 63.6(g), Approval of Alternative Non-Opacity Standards; § 63.6(h)(9), Approval of Alternative Opacity Standards; § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Test Methods; § 63.8(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Monitoring; and § 63.10(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting. In addition, some Part 63 standards have certain provisions that cannot be delegated to the States. Therefore, any Part 63 standard that the EPA is delegating to TCEQ that provides that certain authorities cannot be delegated are retained by the EPA and not delegated. Furthermore, no authorities are delegated that require rulemaking in the Federal Register to implement, or where Federal overview is the only way to ensure national consistency in the application of the standards or requirements of CAA section 112. Finally, section 112(r), the accidental release program authority, is not being delegated by this approval.

All of the inquiries and requests concerning implementation and enforcement of the excluded standards in the State of Texas should be directed to the EPA Region 6 Office.

In addition, this delegation to TCEQ to implement and enforce certain NESHAPs does not extend to sources or activities located in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Under this definition, the EPA treats as reservations, trust lands validly set aside for the use of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been formally designated as a reservation. Consistent with previous federal program approvals or delegations, the EPA will continue to implement the NESHAPs in Indian country because TCEQ has not submitted information to demonstrate authority over sources and activities located within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations and other areas in Indian country.

In approving this delegation, TCEQ will seek concurrence from the EPA on any matter involving the interpretation of section 112 of the CAA or 40 CFR part 63 to the extent that application, implementation, administration, or enforcement of these sections have not been covered by the EPA determinations or guidance.

We retain the right, as provided by CAA section 112(l)(7), to enforce any applicable emission standard or requirement under section 112. The EPA also has the authority to make certain decisions under the General Provisions (subpart A) of part 63. We are granting TCEQ some of these authorities, and retaining others, as explained in sections V and VI above. In addition, the EPA may review and disapprove of State determinations and subsequently require corrections. (See 40 CFR 63.91(g) and 65 FR 55810, 55823, September 14, 2000, as amended at 70 FR 59887, October 13, 2005; 72 FR 27443, May 16, 2007.)

Furthermore, we retain any authority in an individual emission standard that may not be delegated according to provisions of the standard. Also, listed in the footnotes of the part 63 delegation table at the end of this rule are the authorities that cannot be delegated to any State or local agency which we therefore retain.

TCEQ must provide any additional compliance related information to the EPA, Region 6, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance within 45 days of a request under 40 CFR 63.96(a). In receiving delegation for specific General Provisions authorities, TCEQ must submit to the EPA Region 6 on a semi-annual basis, copies of determinations issued under these authorities. For part 63 standards, these determinations include: Section 63.1, Applicability Determinations; Section 63.6(e), Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; Section 63.6(f), Compliance with Non-Opacity Standards—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; Section 63.6(h), Compliance with Opacity and Visible Emissions Standards—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; Sections 63.7(c)(2)(i) and (d), Approval of Site-Specific Test Plans; Section 63.7(e)(2)(i), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Test Methods; Section 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Intermediate Alternatives to Test Methods; Section 63.7(e)(iii), Approval of Shorter Sampling Times and Volumes When Necessitated by Process Variables or Other Factors; Sections 63.7(e)(2)(iv), (h)(2), and (h)(3), Waiver of Performance Testing; Sections 63.8(c)(1) and (e)(1), Approval of Site-Specific Performance Evaluation (Monitoring) Test Plans; Section 63.8(f), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Monitoring; Section 63.8(f), Approval of Intermediate Alternatives to Monitoring; Section 63.9 and 63.10, Approval of Adjustments to Time Periods for Submitting Reports; Section 63.10(f), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting; Section 63.7(a)(4), Extension of Performance Test Deadline.

The EPA must oversee TCEQ's decisions to ensure the delegated authorities are being adequately implemented and enforced. We will integrate oversight of the delegated authorities into the existing mechanisms and resources for oversight currently in place. If, during oversight, we determine that TCEQ made decisions that decreased the stringency of the delegated standards, then TCEQ shall be required to take corrective actions and the source(s) affected by the decisions will be notified, as required by 40 CFR 63.91(g)(1)(ii). We will initiate withdrawal of the program or rule if the corrective actions taken are insufficient.

For the NESHAPs being delegated and included in the table below, all of the information required pursuant to the general provisions and the relevant subpart of the Federal NESHAP (40 CFR part 63) should be submitted by sources located outside of Indian country, directly to TCEQ at the following address: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration, Air Permits Division (MC 163), P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. TCEQ is the primary point of contact with respect to delegated NESHAPs. Sources do not need to send a copy to the EPA. The EPA Region 6 waives the requirement that notifications and reports for delegated standards be submitted to the EPA in addition to TCEQ in accordance with 40 CFR 63.9(a)(4)(ii) and 63.10(a)(4)(ii).1 For those standards that are not delegated, sources must continue to submit all appropriate information to the EPA.

In the future, TCEQ will only need to send a letter of request to the EPA, Region 6, for NESHAP regulations that TCEQ has adopted by reference. The letter must reference the previous up-front approval demonstration and reaffirm that it still meets the up-front approval criteria. We will respond in writing to the request stating that the request for delegation is either granted or denied. A Federal Register action will be published to inform the public and affected sources of the delegation, indicate where source notifications and reports should be sent, and to amend the relevant portions of the Code of Federal Regulations showing which NESHAP standards have been delegated to TCEQ.

The public was provided the opportunity to comment on the proposed approval of the program and mechanism for delegation of section 112 standards, as they apply to part 70 sources, on June 7, 1995, for the proposed interim approval of TCEQ's Title V operating permits program; and on October 11, 2001, for the proposed final approval of TCEQ's Title V operating permits program. In the EPA's final full approval of Texas' Operating Permits Program on December 6, 2001 (66 FR 63318), the EPA discussed the public comments on the proposed final delegation of the Title V operating permits program. In today's action, the public is given the opportunity to comment on the approval of TCEQ's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce certain section 112 standards for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources) which have been adopted by reference into Texas' state regulations. However, the Agency views the approval of these requests as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. Therefore, the EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the Federal Register, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the program and delegation of authority described in this action if relevant adverse comments are received. This action will be effective March 13, 2018 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by February 12, 2018.

If the EPA receives relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if we receive relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of a relevant adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The delegation is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state request to receive delegation of certain Federal standards, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing delegation submissions, the EPA's role is to approve submissions, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), the EPA has no authority to disapprove a delegation submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA to use VCS in place of a delegation submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 13, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows:

A summary of the WEA Report and Order was published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2016, 81 FR 75710. The WEA Report and Order promotes the utility of WEA as a life-saving tool. The summary stated that it would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of the rules requiring OMB approval. The information collection requirements in §  10.320(g) were approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 3060-1126. With publication of the instant document in the Federal Register, the rule changes to 47 CFR 10.320(g) adopted in the WEA Report and Order are now effective.

If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1126, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected].

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on March 13, 2017, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to 47 CFR 10.320(g).

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1126.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1126.

OMB Approval Date: March 13, 2017.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2020.

Title: Testing and Logging Requirements for Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA).

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 80 respondents; 451,600 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.0000694 hours (2.5 seconds)-2 hours.

Frequency of Response: Monthly and on occasion reporting requirements and recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation To Respond: Statutory authority for these collection is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g), 706, and 715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 301(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 615, as well as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act, 47 U.S.C. 1202(a), (b), (c), (f), 1203, 1204 and 1206, unless otherwise noted.

Total Annual Burden: 125,390 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the federal Freedom of Information Act upon request, but only insofar as those logs pertain to Alert Messages initiated by that emergency management agency.

Privacy Act: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: Section 10.320 describes the provider alert gateway requirements, specifically with respect to logging. The CMS provider must log the CMAC attributes of all Alert Messages received at the CMS Provider Alert Gateway, including time stamps that verify when the message is received, and when it is retransmitted or rejected by the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway. If an Alert Message is rejected, a Participating CMS Provider is required to log the specific error code generated by the rejection. The CMS provider must also maintain a log of all active and cancelled Alert Messages for at least 12 months after receipt of such alert or cancellation and make their alert logs available to the Commission and FEMA upon request. Participating CMS Providers are also required to make alert logs available to emergency management agencies that offer confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the federal Freedom of Information Act upon request, but only insofar as those logs pertain to Alert Messages initiated by that emergency management agency.

This information will inform emergency managers whether their alerts are delivered, and if not, why not. We anticipate that the alert log maintenance requirements will serve to ensure that alert logs are available when needed, both to the Commission and to emergency management agencies. These logs have potential to increase their confidence that WEA will work as intended when needed. Alert logs are also necessary to establish a baseline for system integrity against which future iterations of WEA can be evaluated. Without records that can be used to describe the quality of system integrity, and the most common causes of message transmission failure, it will be difficult to evaluate how any changes to WEA could affect system integrity.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, in CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 17-151, adopted on November 16, 2017 and released on November 17, 2017. The full text of this document will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching ECFS at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CG Docket No. 17-59 into the Proceeding block). The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that was adopted concurrently with the Report and Order is published elsewhere in the Federal Register.

The Report and Order does not contain any new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

The Commission sent a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

1. In the Report and Order, the Commission takes another important step in combatting illegal robocalls by enabling voice service providers to block certain calls before they reach consumers' phones. Specifically, the Commission adopts rules allowing providers to block calls from phone numbers on a Do-Not-Originate (DNO) list and those that purport to be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers. Providers have been active in identifying these calls and there is broad support for these rules. At the same time, the Commission establishes safeguards to mitigate the possibility of blocking desired calls.

2. Caller ID spoofing is often the key to making robocall scams work. Generally, Caller ID services permit the recipient of an incoming call to know the telephone number of the calling party, and in some cases a name associated with the number, before the recipient answers the call. But Caller ID information can be altered or manipulated, i.e., spoofed, so that the name or number displayed to the called party does not match that of the actual subscriber or the actual originating number. Though callers can use spoofing to mislead or even defraud the called party, there are legitimate uses for spoofing.

3. Congress passed the 2009 Truth in Caller ID Act to “address the growing problem of Caller ID spoofing done for fraudulent or harmful purposes.” Congress limited the spoofing prohibition to the knowing transmission of misleading or inaccurate Caller ID information “with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value,” except where such transmission is determined to be exempt by the Commission.

4. Despite these protections, consumers still receive an unacceptably high volume of illegal robocalls. To combat the robocall problem in a coordinated way, industry established the Robocall Strike Force (Strike Force) in 2016. The Strike Force includes representatives from providers of traditional landline, mobile, and Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, handset manufacturers, operating system developers, and VoIP gateway providers. The Strike Force has said that “robocalls are best addressed in a holistic manner through deployment of a wide variety of tools by a broad range of stakeholders” that includes industry blocking of calls. On October 26, 2016, it published the Robocall Strike Force Report (Strike Force Report). The Strike Force specifically asked the Commission to provide guidance on when providers may block a call that the provider believes is illegal.

5. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) addressed one of the Strike Force's requests in 2016 by clarifying that voice service providers may block calls using a spoofed Caller ID number if the number's subscriber requests that they do so. Following that initial guidance, the Strike Force Report sought additional clarification regarding the legality of certain provider-initiated call blocking. Specifically, it sought clarification that: (1) Providers may block calls where the Caller ID shows an unassigned number; and (2) providers may block calls that the provider has determined to be illegal robocalls, so long as the provider takes reasonable steps to confirm that the calls are illegal.

6. In the March 2017 Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, document FCC 17-24, published at 82 FR 22625, May 17, 2017, the Commission sought comment on whether to take certain steps to facilitate voice service providers' blocking of illegal robocalls. In the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, the Commission proposed rules to allow voice service providers to block telephone calls when the subscriber of a phone number requests that calls purporting to originate from that number be blocked, and when calls purport to originate from three categories of phone numbers: Invalid numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated to a voice service provider, and valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned to a subscriber.

7. Call Completion Considerations. The Commission has generally found call blocking by voice service providers to be unlawful. The Commission also made clear that it is unlawful for providers to block VoIP-Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) traffic, and for interconnected and one-way VoIP providers to block voice traffic to or from the PSTN. The Commission has allowed call blocking only in “rare and limited circumstances.”

8. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts rules to give voice service providers the option of blocking illegal robocalls in certain, well-defined circumstances. By doing so, the Commission furthers its goal of removing regulatory roadblocks and gives industry the flexibility to block illegal calls. At the same time, the Commission affirms its commitment to protect the reliability of the nation's communications network and ensure that provider-initiated blocking helps, rather than harms, consumers. These rules outline specific, well-defined circumstances in which voice service providers may block calls that are highly likely to be illegitimate because there is no lawful reason to spoof certain kinds of numbers. Thus, a provider who blocks calls in accordance with these rules will not violate the call completion rules. Conversely, a provider that blocks calls that do not fall within the scope of these rules may be liable for violating the Commission's call completion rules.

9. First, the Commission codifies the Bureau's earlier clarification that providers may block calls when they receive a request from the subscriber to which the originating number is assigned, i.e., a DNO request. The 2016 Guidance Public Notice, document DA 16-1121, made clear that voice service providers—whether providing such service through TDM, VoIP, or CMRS—may block calls purporting to be from a telephone number if the subscriber to that number requests such blocking in order to prevent its number from being spoofed. The Bureau concluded that where the subscriber did not consent to the number being used, the call was very likely made to annoy and defraud, and therefore, no reasonable consumer would wish to receive such a call. The Commission agrees and finds such DNO calls highly likely to be illegal and to violate the Commission's anti-spoofing rule, with the potential to cause harm, defraud, or wrongfully obtain something of value.

10. The record shows broad support among consumer groups, providers, government, and callers for blocking DNO calls. Consumers Union et. al. emphasizes the urgent need for providers to take action against spoofed calls, stating, “DNO is one of several promising tools that they should implement to help address the problem.” Several commenters note the positive results of DNO trials conducted by members of the Strike Force.

11. ZipDX and others claim that gains from blocking DNO numbers will be temporary, because those making illegal robocalls will simply choose other numbers to spoof when their calls are blocked. The Commission disagrees that this possibility negates the demonstrated benefits of such blocking. Allowing providers to block spoofed calls from high-profile numbers, such as IRS phone numbers, that are among those most likely to lure consumers into scams will substantially benefit consumers and help entities that make DNO requests control the integrity of their phone numbers. The Commission believes that codifying the Bureau's 2016 guidance in the form of a rule gives providers greater certainty that blocking calls at the request of the subscriber is lawful and provides an incentive to engage in this kind of beneficial blocking.

12. Criteria for Blocking DNO Numbers. In its comments, USTelecom suggests five criteria used by the Industry Traceback Group (ITB) to evaluate numbers to determine whether they should be blocked, namely:

13. Coordination of Effort. The Commission agrees with Consumers Union et. al. that “[m]uch responsibility rests with the providers to ensure that DNO works as well as possible” through broad industry participation. While full industry participation is not required to achieve positive results, having more providers block a number will allow fewer calls purporting to be from that number to go through. Commenters note that providers must coordinate their efforts for this type of call blocking to be used effectively. For example, Sprint comments that, while it supports this type of blocking and participated in the collaborative effort to block spoofed IRS numbers, “there are currently no automated systems in place to expand the scale of such projects industry-wide or to accommodate much larger numbers of customers requesting blocking.” USTelecom points out the inefficiency of requiring subscribers “requesting DNOs to be forced to make individual requests to multiple providers.” ZipDX suggests that the originating provider is in the best position to block these kinds of calls.

14. Other commenters, however, suggest that providers expand their existing ways of sharing information from the test cases and other initiatives to support this effort. As Comcast comments, “[p]articipants in the Strike Force have set up an ad hoc shared list of numbers that should not be originated and can add more for review.” USTelecom comments that its “Industry Traceback Group has been facilitating a targeted, centralized, and coordinated DNO trial and stands ready to continue to evolve industry efforts on this front going forward.”

15. The Commission strongly encourages providers to continue to work cooperatively to share information about any inbound-only numbers for which the subscriber has requested that the number be blocked. At this time, the Commission declines to prescribe a sharing mechanism, especially in light of industry's existing efforts at coordination. The Commission emphasizes that safeguards must be put in place to prevent numbers used for outbound calls from being wrongly added to the DNO list, whether from hacking, honest mistakes, or some other cause, especially for calls made to emergency services. The Commission encourages industry to continue developing its methods for implementing DNO and encourages providers that choose to do such blocking to establish a mechanism for timely removal of erroneous blocks.

16. Resellers. Finally, the Commission agree with TracFone that wireless resellers may pass along subscriber requests to the underlying carrier that the subscriber's inbound-only number be blocked. The Commission sees no reason on this record to not allow wireless reseller subscribers to participate in the DNO effort.

17. The Commission next finds that providers may initiate blocking where the call purports to originate from a number that is unassigned. Use of an unassigned number provides a strong indication that the calling party is spoofing the Caller ID to potentially defraud and harm a voice service subscriber. Such calls are therefore highly likely to be illegal. The Commission identifies three categories of unassigned numbers that it determines can be reasonably subject to blocking: (1) Numbers that are invalid under the North American Numbering Plan (NANP); (2) numbers that have not been allocated by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) or the Pooling Administrator (PA) to any provider; and (3) numbers that the NANPA or PA has allocated to a provider, but are not currently used. Providers may block calls purporting to be from numbers that fall into any one of these three categories.

18. Providers may block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are not valid NANP numbers. Examples of such numbers include those that use an unassigned area code; that use an abbreviated dialing code, such as 911 or 411, in place of an area code; that do not contain the requisite number of digits; and that are a single digit repeated, such as 000-000-0000, with the exception of 888-888-8888, which is an assignable number. With a few important exceptions detailed below, the record generally supports the assumption that, because these numbers are not valid, a subscriber could not lawfully originate calls from such numbers and these calls should be blocked. Providers, however, must take care that they do not block calls that purportedly originate from valid numbers, especially emergency calls.

19. The record supports the proposal that no caller would spoof an invalid number for any lawful purpose; for example, unlike a business spoofing Caller ID on outgoing calls to show its main call-back number, invalid numbers cannot be called back. Thus, the Commission does not see a significant risk to network reliability in allowing providers to block this category of calls. ATIS suggests that benefits will be temporary because “widespread blocking of invalid and unallocated numbers could have an unintended negative consequence by driving bad actors to focus their efforts on spoofing assigned/valid numbers.” Consumers Union et. al., however, comment that blocking such calls is imperative, because “[c]onsumers do not expect that their phone service would be the means through which illegal and fraudulent scams enter their homes, and providers should not be obligated to deliver illegal messages that could cause consumers harm.” In addition, blocking calls purporting to be from invalid numbers “holds the greatest potential for success in the short term and likely would be the easiest to implement.”

20. The Commission rejects suggestions that blocking calls purporting to originate from invalid numbers creates “significant possibilities of false positives.” Although ZipDX claims that “a significant number” of private branch exchanges (PBXs) “are not properly configured” to display an accurate Caller ID and that Caller ID information could theoretically be “unintentionally altered” during a call's transmission, the record belies such claims. Instead, the record demonstrates that the risk of erroneously blocking such calls is very low and should not be a barrier to allowing providers to block calls purporting to be from invalid numbers. Indeed, the Commission agrees with USTelecom that this small risk simply requires providers to exercise “caution when instituting blocking in the network.” And the Commission reiterates that caution to businesses with PBXs: The responsibility to properly configure PBX equipment lies with the owner, and those spoofing invalid numbers (whether intentionally or not) have the ability to ensure that their calls go through by properly reconfiguring that equipment.

21. Identifying Invalid Numbers. Neustar, which currently is the NANPA and PA, comments that “information for invalid numbers [is maintained] within the [NANP], and the industry has other sources to identify invalid numbers such as ATIS's Industry Numbering Committee. . . . Thus, service providers already have access to the information they need” for this kind of blocking. Comcast similarly states that “[v]oice providers generally have `intimate knowledge of the [NANP]' and can `easily identify numbers that fall into this category,' including numbers that use an N11 code in place of an area code or that repeat a single digit.” In light of the industry's assurance that it can confidently identify invalid numbers, the Commission sees no need to further define or limit what is meant by “a number that is not a valid [NANP] number.” The Commission encourages providers to conduct tests or simulations before blocking calls purporting to originate from invalid numbers to verify their methods.

22. The Commission finds that providers may block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are valid but have not yet been allocated by the NANPA or the PA to any provider. Though these numbers are valid under the NANP, the Commission finds that calls purporting to use unallocated numbers are similar to calls purporting to use invalid numbers in that no subscriber can actually originate a call from any of these numbers, and the Commission sees no lawful reason to spoof such numbers because they cannot be called back. Calls purporting to originate from such numbers therefore are highly likely to be illegal.

23. Here, the provider must have knowledge that a certain block of numbers has not been allocated to any provider and therefore that the number being blocked could not have been assigned to a subscriber. The record generally supports allowing permissive blocking of calls purporting to be from unallocated numbers. For example, ATIS points out that “no subscriber can actually originate a call from these unallocated central office codes and it is unlikely that there is any legitimate, lawful reason to.”

24. Parties opposing this type of call blocking generally do so based on implementation difficulties and the risk of blocking legal calls. For example, NCTA warns that the proposal “could unintentionally result in harm to consumers and should not be adopted at this time,” and ZipDX cautions that “[t]he unintended consequences of these blocks (false positives) are potentially quite troublesome and far outweigh any good that would result from successful robocall blocks.” Several commenters also note that, if providers block unallocated numbers, then “illegal robocallers could simply shift to spoofing assigned numbers.”

25. Commenters do not agree on the potential volume of calls that might be blocked under this rule. While ZipDX says the “fraction of complaints” from unassigned numbers is “miniscule,” USTelecom states that “the scale of numbers at issue in the Commission's latter two proposals [blocking calls from unallocated and unassigned numbers] are potentially enormous—encompassing 3 billion telephone numbers.” Transaction Network Services (TNS) attempts to strike a middle ground, suggesting that “[w]hile there is a large number of unallocated telephone numbers (over 33 million) that have been flagged as making calls, the volume of call activity from these numbers relative to all negative robocalling is very small.” TNS concludes that blocking “this subset of numbers has significant, but limited value.” In contrast, a recent Commission enforcement action found that one robocaller made a staggering 21,582,771 spoofed robocalls in a three-month period; the caller ID for each of the robocalls examined by the FCC falsely identified a phone number that was not assigned to any carrier or subscriber at the time the calls were made. Although the number of complaints about calls from unassigned numbers may be small, the Commission agrees with USTelecom that the potential value of blocking such calls is enormous. Consumers will benefit from this type of blocking because the calls are highly likely to annoy or defraud.

26. Defining Unallocated Numbers Subject to Blocking. Some commenters emphasize that a permissive rule does not require providers to identify and block every unallocated number, but rather simply allows a provider to block calls purporting to be from those numbers it can verify are unallocated. The Commission agrees. Providers may block calls purporting to be from unallocated numbers and should limit themselves to blocking only those numbers that they can verify are unallocated. Providers may not be able to identify the complete set of all unallocated numbers for purposes of call blocking. Accordingly, voice service providers might be unable to block calls purporting to originate from every unallocated number, but this shortcoming would not result in the blocking of legal calls.

27. Obtaining Unallocated Number Information. The Commission does not prescribe a technical solution for identifying and communicating information about unallocated numbers at this time. The record shows consensus that, while information on unallocated numbers is available to providers, no currently available source identifies all unallocated numbers in real time and that “the NANPA does not administer codes outside the United States, specifically in Canada and Caribbean countries, or toll-free numbers.” Many commenters suggest that providers should use a new, centralized database as a resource for identification of unallocated numbers.

28. Neustar lists categories of unallocated numbers that should not initiate calls, including “telephone numbers in: (1) Unallocated area codes in the NANP; (2) unallocated geographic Central Office (“CO”) codes (NPA-NXX) in the United States; and (3) unallocated non-contaminated thousands-blocks (NPA-NXX-X) in the United States.” ATIS elaborates on the issue of contaminated thousands-blocks, stating that available thousands-blocks “publicly posted on the PA website . . . could contain up to 100 assigned numbers within those blocks.” Therefore, providers blocking calls from contaminated blocks could erroneously block calls purporting to originate from assigned numbers. Providers that block calls purporting to originate from assigned numbers may be liable for violating the call completion rules.

29. Several commenters propose enhancements to the information provided by the NANPA and the PA. Neustar suggests that the NANPA and the PA “provide on their websites: (1) `Blacklists' of unallocated numbers that should not be making calls; and (2) `Whitelists' of allocated area codes in the NANP, allocated geographic CO codes in the United States, and allocated thousands-blocks in the United States.” Comcast takes a similar approach, suggesting that the databases “(1) more clearly identify which numbers have not yet been allocated and (2) are updated immediately to reflect any new allocations as they occur.”

30. The Commission believes that providers, the NANPA, and the PA are in the best position to determine how to share information about unallocated numbers. The Commission encourages these parties to work together on whether and how to improve the availability of this information for blocking purposes. At the same time, the Commission cautions against blocking calls purporting to originate from allocated numbers and encourages providers to examine their practices carefully to verify that they are not inadvertently doing so. A provider that erroneously blocks calls purporting to originate from allocated numbers may be liable for violating the call completion rules.

31. The Commission finds that providers may block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are allocated to a provider by the NANPA or PA, but are unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking. For these purposes, an “unused” number is a number that is not assigned to a subscriber or otherwise set aside for outbound call use. As with invalid numbers and unallocated numbers, calls cannot originate from such a number, and the Commission foresees no lawful purpose for intentionally spoofing a number that is unused and thus cannot be called back.

32. The record shows mixed support for allowing providers to block these kinds of calls. For example, EPIC points out that “because they are not assigned anyone using them without the provider's knowledge is almost certainly engaging in unlawful activity.” Many commenters, however, express concerns about legal calls being blocked, similar to the concerns about unallocated number call blocking, because “the status of numbers is always changing.” The record also shows “potentially thorny implementation issues” for blocking calls from unused numbers, similar to but greater in scale than those identified for unallocated numbers. In addition, the argument concerning the likely reaction of robocallers to the blocking of unallocated numbers detailed above applies here as well.

33. Obtaining Unused Number Information. The record clearly shows “an industry-wide recognition that there is currently no technical solution that allows providers to accurately and promptly identify numbers that have been allocated to a carrier but not yet assigned to a subscriber.” Commenters assert that without such a database, providers cannot be certain of the status of numbers not assigned to them. The Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) and other existing databases do not show the details of provider assignment of numbers and are not capable of identifying reassigned numbers. Microsoft claims that such blocking, “if not supported by use of a 100 percent reliable real-time database (which does not exist), could prevent outgoing domestic call completion for consumers who are assigned newly-activated telephone numbers.”

34. The record reveals that creating such a database would be difficult. Neustar comments that providers “often consider such information to be competitively sensitive.” In addition, the information changes very quickly, “as providers are constantly assigning new numbers to subscribers or are de-assigning numbers when a subscriber leaves and decides not to take advantage of number portability.” While the FTC encourages providers to share this information, providers oppose mandatory information sharing. CTIA cautions that creating a centralized database “is technically challenging and would divert resources away from innovative solutions.”

35. The Commission concludes, however, that a narrowly tailored rule could be implemented without a database. Noble Systems makes a distinction between allowing providers to block calls purported to originate from numbers allocated to that provider, which the provider knows to be unused, and requiring providers to share information to block all unused numbers. Regarding their own numbers, “each individual service provider certainly knows which telephone numbers it has been allocated but not yet assigned to subscribers.” As such, the rule permits providers to block on this basis. Should the industry develop more comprehensive information sources that would facilitate broader blocking of calls purported to originate from unused numbers, the rule would also permit that kind of blocking.

36. Scope of Rule. The record shows significant obstacles to implementing a rule requiring all providers to pool their information, yet where the allocatee of the number in question is the only provider able to block calls purporting to originate from that number, “the value of the initiative would be significantly diminished and would create a disadvantage for smaller providers.” With fewer providers blocking each number, fewer illegal calls will be blocked overall.

37. The Commission will not require providers to share competitively sensitive information on an industry-wide basis, nor will it limit providers to blocking only unused numbers they have been allocated. The Commission therefore defines the scope of this rule to allow providers to block calls purporting to originate from an unused number, so long as the provider blocking the call either (1) is the allocatee of the number and has confirmed the number is unused, or (2) has verified the unused status of the number with the allocatee at the time of the blocking. This gives providers the flexibility to share information if they wish to, and the Commission encourages providers to do so.

38. In addition, this is a permissive rule. CTIA points out that such “[a] voluntary regime will allow carriers that develop the ability to identify these numbers to block calls originating from them without forcing carriers to develop capabilities they do not currently possess.”

39. Types of Used Numbers. Many commenters indicate that legal calls may be made from what appear to be unassigned numbers. For example, INCOMPAS points out that “many legitimate callers do not originate calls on the [PSTN] and, therefore, do not have telephone numbers.” Commenters identify three specific kinds of unassigned numbers that should not be blocked because they are being used to make legal outbound calls: Intermediate numbers, administrative numbers, and proxy numbers. The Commission acknowledges this concern and the rule is clear that providers should not block any type of number that, although it is not assigned to a subscriber, is used for these lawful purposes. The Commission encourages providers to examine the status of their numbers before blocking calls that purport to originate from unused numbers to verify that they are not inadvertently blocking calls that fall outside the scope of this rule, which would risk liability for violating the call completion rules.

40. Emergency Calls. The Commission makes clear that the rules do not authorize the blocking of calls to 911 under any circumstance. The Commission notes that the NANP itself contemplates certain non-standard numbers to facilitate emergency calling; the NANP, for example, “permits the use of `911' as the [Numbering Plan Area code] for emergency calls from non-initialized mobile devices.” To make it abundantly clear, nonetheless, that voice providers should not block such calls, the Commission makes clear these rules do not permit the blocking of emergency calls except as otherwise expressly permitted by the Commission's rules.

41. International Calls. In the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, the Commission sought comment “on whether an internationally originated call purportedly originated from a NANP number should be subject to these rules, whereas an internationally originated call showing an international number would be beyond the scope of this rule.” The Commission adopts this proposal. The Commission agrees with Neustar that it should apply to international calls purporting to use NANP numbers “the same blocking rules applicable to domestic originated calls.” Many illegal robocalls originate from overseas call centers, and excluding such calls that purport to use NANP numbers from the ambit of the rule would create an exception that threatens to swallow the rule. In contrast, international calls from purported non-NANP numbers would not, by definition, follow the NANP numbering scheme and thus are beyond the scope of this proceeding.

42. The Commission agrees with commenters that internationally originated calls may have lawful reasons to use a NANP number. VON, for example, suggests “a US-based user of a service may be traveling in Europe but uses their service to make Wi-Fi-based calls (and have their US caller ID shown).” And the Commission agrees with Microsoft that it must “avoid inadvertently authorizing international call blocking.” But the Commission disagrees with ZipDX's apparent suggestion that some possibility of international call blocking means the Commission must abandon its efforts. Because the Commission authorizes blocking only for purported NANP numbers, it sees no reason why the actual origination point of the call would bear on whether it is blocked. In other words, the Commission finds the likelihood of blocking a legitimate call is minimal—no matter its origin. And the Commission reiterates that the rules do not authorize the blocking of any international call purporting to use a valid NANP number assigned to that user.

43. Subscriber Consent. The Commission does not require consumer opt-in for providers to block the specific types of calls addressed herein. The Commission believes that no reasonable consumer would want to receive the calls the Commission has determined may be subject to blocking. For call blocking to be most effective, it must be applied throughout the calling network. An opt-in requirement would thwart providers' efforts.

44. The record shows support for allowing providers to block these specific types of spoofed calls without requiring consent from the subscriber. Some commenters emphasize the limited scope of calls that do not require consent. ITTA agrees with the Commission's reasoning that “obtaining opt-in consent from subscribers would add unnecessary burdens and complexity, . . . may not be technically feasible for some providers” and “would also add unnecessary delays.” EPIC comments that “proactive blocking” would benefit consumers, “especially those that rely on landlines, [who] may not have or use caller ID.”

45. Consumers Union et. al. propose that providers should obtain consent from all consumers before blocking calls other than those purporting to originate from DNO numbers, but, as stated above, the Commission does not believe any reasonable consumer would want to receive these calls. The administrative burden of tracking individual opt-in responses would likely be a disincentive to blocking.

46. While providers are not required to obtain subscriber consent before blocking these calls, the Commission emphasizes that the types of calls that can be blocked are very limited. The Commission agrees with the recommendation from the Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC) and encourages providers to inform their customers about the features and risks of their own call blocking programs.

47. Call Completion Rates. The Strike Force requested that the Commission amend its call completion rules to ensure that providers can block illegal calls without those blocked calls being held against them in calculating call completion rates. The Commission agrees that providers do not need to count these blocked calls for purposes of calculating their call completion rates on FCC Form 480 and therefore the Commission interprets the rules and the form to not require inclusion of calls blocked in accordance with the rules adopted here. Reporting carriers may exclude these calls to the extent that they are able to identify them.

48. The record shows significant support for excluding these calls from the call completion calculations to “incentivize carriers to participate in voluntary blocking when appropriate and consistent with the rules.” CenturyLink comments that “[w]ithout this protection, carriers may be unwilling to use any of the tools that may be adopted in the proceeding and the consumer benefits the Commission hopes to achieve may not be realized.” Consumers Union et. al. agrees that “the calls that are blocked according to these guidelines should be exempt from call completion rates.”

49. Notwithstanding this support for the concept of excluding blocked calls from call completion rate calculations, it might not currently be possible for all providers to identify blocked calls. Originating providers required to file call completion reports have no standard mechanism to identify calls that are blocked intentionally under these rules by downstream providers and distinguish them from calls that are not completed for other reasons. Further, NTCA suggests that excluding such calls from call completion would be premature “until the definitions and practical considerations noted above are addressed and standardized by industry and the Commission.”

50. Given the inability of all providers who must file call completion reports to identify blocked calls in every instance and the Commission's revisiting of the rural call completion requirements in a separate rulemaking proceeding, the Commission does not believe that requiring exclusion of these calls is appropriate at this time. The Commission instead simply notes that providers subject to the call-completion reporting rules may, but are not required to, exclude blocked calls from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to the extent they can identify such calls.

51. CPNI Rules. In the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, the Commission sought comment on whether there are concerns about sharing DNO request information and whether any clarifications or rule changes could be helpful. Some commenters asked the Commission to clarify the applicability of section 222 of the Act, and the implementing rules, in order to allow sharing of robocall information for traceback purposes or sharing of a subscriber's request to block an inbound-only number.

52. USTelecom notes that “the sharing of CPNI by telecommunications providers is essential to ensuring accurate and thorough call traceback efforts in multiple providers' networks related to suspicious calling events.” The Commission notes that traceback efforts are aimed at identifying persons who make illegal robocalls, including calls that involve fraud in violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act. The FTC comments that “information sharing by providers at the subscriber's request appears to be consistent” with the CPNI rules. The Commission agrees. Section 222 of the Act and the implementing rules explicitly allow telecommunications carriers to use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI obtained from its customers, either directly or indirectly through its agents, “to protect the rights or property of the carrier, or to protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services.” Furthermore, the Commission agrees with the FTC that when a subscriber requests that the carrier block calls purporting to be from the subscriber's inbound-only number, “the subscriber is almost certainly seeking to have the number blocked by as many providers as possible.” Therefore, such a request should be understood as authorizing the carrier to share that request with other carriers as permitted by section 222(c)(1) of the Act. Thus, voice service providers are free to share DNO requests as necessary to block calls in the limited circumstances identified in the Report and Order.

53. Removing Blocks on Valid Numbers. A challenge mechanism may be needed for voice service providers that block calls given the small possibility of blocking legitimate calls. AARP suggested “[i]t would seem to be prudent to have the needed procedures to allow consumers to quickly counteract inadvertent blocking in place prior to the commencement of the general robocall blocking program.” The Commission's Consumer Advisory Committee similarly states that providers and consumers should “work collaboratively to develop processes and solutions whereby unintended blocking of legitimate callers can be remedied in a timely and efficient manner.” The Commission encourages providers that block calls to establish a means for a caller whose number is blocked to contact the provider and remedy the problem. Specifically, the Commission encourages providers that block calls in accordance with these rules to provide a way for subscribers to challenge a blocked number using a simple method that is easy for the average subscriber to understand. The Commission also encourages providers to quickly resolve the matter so subscribers making legitimate calls may resume doing so speedily.

54. As a reminder, the call completion rules require voice service providers to complete calls and they should therefore not block legitimate calls. The Commission also reminds callers that the Commission's complaint process is available when calls that fall outside the scope of these rules are improperly blocked.

55. Definition of “Illegal Robocall.” Although the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI sought comment on the definition of “illegal robocall” for the purposes of this proceeding, the Commission declines to adopt a definition here given that none of the rules adopted here rely on such a definition. Indeed, the record shows confusion regarding how the proposed definition of “illegal robocall” should apply to the call blocking rules. Sprint comments that providers cannot determine whether a call meets the definition of an illegal robocall before blocking it, because “[u]nlike spam prevention in email, the content of a call cannot be determined before the call rings through to the customer's phone.” First Orion states “the Commission clearly intends to give carriers the flexibility to prevent all illegal calls, regardless of the technology used.” Similarly, the FTC suggests that the Commission use the term “illegal call” rather than “illegal robocall,” because “the problematic calls here are not limited to just robocalls, but also abusive, fraudulent, or unlawful calls that are `live.' ” Because the Commission makes clear that providers need not listen to the content of calls or otherwise to determine whether a particular call is expressly illegal before blocking it, the Commission sees no reason to define the term at the present moment.

56. To shed additional light on the issue of robocalling and inform the Commission's actions going forward, the Commission directs the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection, to prepare a report on the state of robocalling in the United States and to submit it to the Commission within one year from publication of the Report and Order in the Federal Register. This report should encompass both the progress made by industry, government, and consumers in combatting illegal robocalls, as well as the remaining challenges to continuing these important efforts. A focus on quantitative data, including, but not limited to, calling trends and consumer complaints, will provide particular insight into the current state of the robocalling problem and how to target additional measures to help consumers avoid the fraud and annoyance that they experience.

57. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, including comment on the IRFA. The comments received are discussed below. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

58. The Report and Order takes another important step in combatting illegal robocalls by enabling voice service providers to block certain calls before they reach consumers' phones. In the year since August 1, 2016, the Commission has received nearly 185,000 complaints about calls that consumers did not want. Stopping illegal robocalls and the problems they cause has united industry, government, and consumer groups. Caller ID spoofing is often the key to making robocall scams work. Therefore, the rules outline specific, well-defined circumstances in which voice service providers may block calls that are highly likely to be illegitimate because there is no lawful reason to spoof certain kinds of numbers. Specifically, the Report and Order adopts rules allowing providers to block calls from phone numbers on a DNO list and those that purport to be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers. By doing so, the Commission furthers its goal of removing regulatory roadblocks and gives industry the flexibility to block illegal calls. At the same time, the Commission affirms its commitment to protect the reliability of the nation's communications network and ensure that provider-initiated blocking helps, rather than harms, consumers. A provider that blocks calls that do not fall within the scope of these rules may be liable for violating the Commission's call completion rules.

59. Blocking at the Request of the Subscriber to the Originating Number. In the Report and Order, the Commission codifies the Bureau's earlier clarification that voice service providers may block calls purporting to be from a telephone number if the subscriber to that number requests such blocking in order to prevent its number from being spoofed. Where the subscriber did not consent to the number being used, the call was very likely made with the intent to defraud, and therefore no reasonable consumer would wish to receive such a call.

60. Calls Supposedly Originating From Invalid Numbers. Similarly, the Report and Order allows providers to block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are not valid under the NANP. Examples of such numbers include those that use an unassigned area code; that use an abbreviated dialing code, such as 411, in place of an area code; that do not contain the requisite number of digits; and that are a single digit repeated, such as 000-000-0000, with the exception of 888-888-8888, which is an assignable number. No caller would spoof an invalid number for any lawful purpose; for example, unlike a business spoofing Caller ID on outgoing calls to show its main call-back number, invalid numbers cannot be called back. Providers, however, must take care that they do not block calls that purportedly originate from valid numbers, especially emergency calls.

61. Calls Supposedly Originating From Numbers Not Allocated to Any Provider. The Report and Order also allows providers to block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are valid but have not yet been allocated by the NANPA or the PA to any provider. Though these numbers are valid under the North American Numbering Plan, the Commission finds that calls purporting to use unallocated numbers are similar to calls purporting to use invalid numbers in that no subscriber can actually originate a call from any of these numbers, and the Commission sees no lawful reason to spoof such numbers because they cannot be called back.

62. Calls Supposedly Originating From Numbers That are Allocated but Unused. Document FCC 17-151 allows providers to block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator or Pooling Administrator, but are unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking. For these purposes, an “unused” number is a number that is not assigned to a subscriber or otherwise set aside for legitimate outbound call use. As with invalid numbers and unallocated numbers, a subscriber cannot originate a call from such a number, and the Commission foresees no lawful purpose for intentionally spoofing a number that is unused and thus cannot be called back.

63. Other Issues. The Report and Order also clarifies that these rules do not permit the blocking of emergency calls except as otherwise expressly permitted by the Commission's rules, that all calls purporting to originate from a NANP number, including international calls, are subject to these rules, and that international calls from purported non-NANP numbers would not, by definition, follow the NANP numbering scheme and thus are beyond the scope of this proceeding. It confirms that the Commission does not require consumer opt-in for providers to block these specific types of calls, clarifies that providers do not need to count these blocked calls for purposes of calculating their call completion rates, clarifies that voice service providers are free to share the CPNI necessary to block calls in the limited circumstances identified in the Report and Order, encourages providers to establish a means for a caller whose number is blocked to contact the provider and remedy the problem, and declines to adopt a definition of the term “illegal robocall” at the present moment.

64. In the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, the Commission solicited comments on how to minimize the economic impact of the new rules on small businesses. The Commission received one comment directly addressing the IRFA and several comments addressing small business concerns. Two of the comments requested that the call blocking rules be permissive, rather than mandatory, three pertained to the administration of a database for unassigned numbers, and two addressed other issues. In addition, the Commission received two consumer comments documenting the negative impact of unwanted calls on small businesses. None of the other comments pointed out any areas where small businesses would incur a particular hardship in complying with the rules.

65. Permissive Rules. Both CTIA and ITTA support permissive rules. CTIA suggests that “blocking of numbers . . . should be authorized, but not required.” ITTA claims that permissive rules give providers “flexibility in how aggressively they choose to block calls.” The rules the Commission adopts here are permissive and not mandatory.

66. Database Administration. INCOMPAS, ITTA, and PACE suggest that a centralized database of unused numbers be created, and then suggest ways to minimize disproportionate costs to small businesses in using such a database. The Commission considered both the technical and cost issues inherent in the creations of a database and determined not to require one. Without a database, concerns about its administration are rendered moot.

67. INCOMPAS requests a mechanism that will “spare smaller providers from using additional resources to prove the legitimacy of its call traffic to other providers.” In the Report and Order, the Commission allows a provider to block unused numbers only if the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking. Therefore, if a smaller provider does not give information to other providers, its call traffic will not be blocked.

68. Other Issues. Commenters raise three other issues. First, INCOMPAS requests that the Commission require providers to put a mechanism in place to remove blocks on valid numbers, and that in doing so, “providers should be given discretion to adjust their policies according to their size and services.” In the Report and Order, the Commission urges, but does not require providers to implement such a mechanism, nor does the Commission provide specific requirements for how providers might remove blocks on valid numbers, allowing smaller providers the flexibility they request. Second, NTCA suggests that the North American Numbering Council (NANC) “may be best positioned to help clarify practical requirements” to “to assess and mitigate the costs of compliance for smaller firms.” However, industry has already established the Robocall Strike Force (Strike Force), which has produced significant documentation clarifying the practical requirements for the limited and specific types of call blocking authorized in the Report and Order. Blocking these calls presents a very low risk, and NANC participation is not required to move forward at this time. Third, TNS suggests that providers be permitted to block unused numbers allocated to other providers to avoid creating “a disadvantage for smaller providers.” The record also shows that many providers view their unused number data as competitively sensitive information. In the Report and Order, the Commission balances these concerns by allowing, but not requiring, providers to block unused numbers allocated to other providers if they have verified the unused status of the number.

69. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

70. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

71. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

72. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of local exchange service are small businesses.

73. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses.

74. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, shared-tenant service providers, and other local service providers are small entities.

75. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although it emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

76. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange carriers are small entities.

77. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, the Commission finds that all but nine incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size standard. Note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, the Commission is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.

78. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to other toll carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of other toll carriers can be considered small.

79. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

80. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. The category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” This category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of satellite telecommunications firms are small entities.

81. All Other Telecommunications. All other telecommunications comprise, inter alia, “establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of All Other Telecommunications. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has $32.5 million in annual receipts. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,400 had annual receipts below $25 million per year. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of all other telecommunications firms are small entities.

82. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition for toll resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities.

83. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these local resellers can be considered small entities.

84. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small entities.

85. The Report and Order gives voice service providers the option of blocking illegal robocalls in certain, well-defined circumstances. These changes affect small and large companies equally, and apply equally to all of the classes of regulated entities identified above.

86. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. The Report and Order clarifies the call completion rules by allowing, but not requiring, voice service providers to exclude calls blocked under these new rules from their call completion calculations, to the extent that they are aware of which calls are blocked. To do so, voice service providers that choose to exclude such calls may modify their current reporting and recordkeeping procedures already in place for performing their call completion calculations on existing FCC Form 480. This is a minor modification to an existing process, so the Commission anticipates that the impact will be minimal.

87. Other Compliance Requirements. Voice service providers will be permitted, but not required, to block calls purportedly originating from (1) a telephone number if the subscriber to that number requests such blocking in order to prevent its number from being spoofed; (2) numbers that purport to be NANP numbers but are not valid under the NANP; (3) numbers that are valid but have not yet been allocated by the NANPA or the PA to any provider; (4) numbers that are allocated to a provider by the NANPA or PA, but are unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number and or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking.

88. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

89. The Commission considered feedback from the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI in crafting the final order. The Commission evaluated the comments in light of balancing the goal of removing regulatory roadblocks and giving industry the flexibility to block illegal calls with its commitment to protect the reliability of the nation's communications network. Small businesses supported the proposal to make the call blocking rules permissive rather than mandatory. While the Commission considered mandatory rules, it both proposed and implemented permissive rules to address the concerns of voice service providers, including small businesses, that the cost and burden of complying with mandatory rules could be significant and might require implementation of new technology. The Commission also took small business concerns into consideration in its determination to not require a database of unused numbers. While the Commission considered mandating the use of a database for providers that choose to block unused numbers, such a database could impose disproportionate costs on small businesses and would be challenging to create and maintain. Similarly, the Commission considered the needs of small businesses in its guidance regarding removing blocks from valid numbers. While the Commission considered requiring specific processes or dedicated resources, it does not mandate them at this time to allow small providers to scale their efforts in accordance with their businesses and to develop a more robust record on the issue before the Commission addresses this in a future proceeding.

90. The Commission does not see a need to establish a special timetable for small entities to reach compliance with the modification to the rules. No small business has asked for a delay in implementing the rules. Small businesses may avoid compliance costs entirely by declining to block robocalls, or may delay implementation of call blocking indefinitely to allow for more time to come into compliance with the rules. Similarly, there are no design standards or performance standards to consider in this rulemaking.

91. The Commission sent a copy of the Report and Order, including the FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

92. Pursuant to sections 201, 202, 222, 251(e), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 222, 251(e), 403, the Report and Order is adopted and that part 64 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 64.1200, is amended.

93. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

94. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and Order, including the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends part 64 as follows:

A summary of the 700 MHz Report and Order was published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2014, 79 FR 71321. The 700 MHz Report and Order adopted technical rules for the 700 MHz narrowband. The summary stated that with the exception of certain rules requiring OMB approval, the rules adopted in the 700 MHz Report and Order would become effective January 2, 2015. With regard to rules requiring OMB approval, the Commission stated it will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of these rules. The information collection requirements in §§  90.531(b)(2) and (b)(7) were approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 3060-1198. With publication of the instant document in the Federal Register, the rule changes to 47 CFR 90.531(b)(2) and (b)(7) adopted in the 700 MHz Report and Order are now effective.

If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1198, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected].

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on April 20, 2015, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to 47 CFR 90.531(b)(2) and (b)(7).

Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1198.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1198.

OMB Approval Date: April 20, 2015.

OMB Expiration Date: April 30, 2018.

Title: Section 90.525, Administration of Interoperability Channels; Section 90.529, State Licenses; and Section 90.531, Band Plan.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,283 respondents; 2,283 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1—2 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting and one-time reporting requirements; third party disclosure.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c) (7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7), unless otherwise noted.

Total Annual Burden: 2,336 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Act: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: Section 90.531(b)(2) of the Commission's rules provides that narrowband reserve channels are designated for General Use subject to Commission approved regional planning committee regional plans and technical rules applicable to General Use channels. T-Band incumbents shall enjoy priority access to these channels in certain markets provided that such incumbent commits to return to the Commission an equal amount of T-Band spectrum and obtains concurrence from the relevant regional planning committee(s). Section 90.531(b)(7) of the Commission's rules reserves certain narrowband channels for air-ground communications to be used by low altitude aircraft and ground based stations subject to state administration (e.g. letter of concurrence).

Commission staff will use the information to assign licenses for narrowband public safety channels. The information will also be used to determine whether prospective licensees operate in compliance with the Commission's rules. Without such information, the Commission could not accommodate State interoperability or regional planning requirements or provide for the efficient use of narrowband public safety frequencies. This information collection includes rules to govern the operation and licensing of 700 MHz band systems to ensure that licensees continue to fulfill their statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Such information will continue to be used to verify that applicants are legally and technically qualified to hold licenses, and to determine compliance with Commission rules.